Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging and histological hoof wall assessment of 3‐year‐old Quarter Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few noninvasive methods are available for equine hoof wall evaluation. The highly organised wall structures and composition of proteoglycans and collagens may make this region amenable to quantitative MRI (qMRI) techniques of T1ρ and T2 mapping to identify pathology related to proteoglycan content and collagen organisation respectively. OBJECTIVE: To establish normative T1ρ and T2 values of the equine hoof wall of 3-year-old Quarter Horses with histological comparison. STUDY DESIGN: Cadaveric anatomical study. METHODS: Six cadaveric left thoracic feet from 3-year-old racing Quarter Horses with no reported lameness were evaluated using T1ρ and T2 mapping. Mapping was performed at six regions of interest at the toe of each hoof including proximal and distal regions of the inner epidermis, stratum lamellatum and corium. Histology was evaluated for standard hoof morphology and proteoglycan staining. RESULTS: T2 values of the stratum lamellatum and corium were similar (42.9 [95% CI: 41.6-44.2] ms and 44 [95% CI: 42.7-45.3] ms respectively), but both were significantly different to the inner epidermis (35.8 [95% CI: 34.5-37.1] ms, P<0.001). T1ρ values for the inner epidermis, stratum lamellatum and corium were significantly different (25.1 [95% CI: 23.1-27.1] ms, 44.4 [95% CI: 42.4-46.4] ms and 50.1 [95% CI: 48.1-52.1] ms, respectively, P<0.001). Histology demonstrated normal organised morphology. Proteoglycan staining was only visible in the stratum lamellatum and corium. MAIN LIMITATIONS: Cadaveric study with frozen samples used. CONCLUSIONS: Variation of qMRI metrics through the depth of the equine hoof wall was found. Although the highly ordered environment of collagen may contribute to T2 values, there was lack of evidence to support proteoglycan content as a major contributor of T1ρ values. It is possible T1ρ values had a greater dependence on total water content as the lowest values were seen in the epidermis. Additional research using qMRI is needed to determine mapping values in different disease states.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".